It is impossible and improper to venerate fictitious or imaginary characters.

Just because someone painted an "icon" of that parable doesn't make it suitable for veneration. It is a didactic image, not an icon. There is nothing in Orthodox tradition which tells us who he was, and if he became a saint. Therefore, how is it possible or proper to venerate people who are characters in a teaching lesson, but were never real people, flesh and blood and soul?

OTOH, the Samaritan woman who conversed with Christ at the well, and the woman with the issue of blood who was healed by touching the hem of Christ's garment, were not named in the scripture accounts in which they appear, but Orthodox tradition names them as Photeini/Svetlana and Veronica, and both are saints.

In order to "venerate" the icon, you kiss it. Whom would you kiss here? The Pharisee or the tax collector....and why would you kiss them?

While the tax collector is a good example of repentance, that we should emulate, he's hardly worthy of kissing and venerating.

We only venerate and worship God....and His saints (only due to God's grace upon and working through them).

Precisely, my dear Liza. Precisely.

The discussions here have been interesting, and as always, informative. However, it seems to me that there are at least categories of images being discussed and perhaps being lumped together. This is confusing. I see them as:

2. Paintings of a religious motif, not truly icons to be venerated - but perhaps of pietetic value or sentiment...Such images have been used in both the west and east as teaching tools for the illiterate or to illustrate children's books for generations. (Bible stories, even church ceilings ...)

3. Heretical images...

There may be others as well.

I guess I am not comfortable in lumping them all together as "schlock."

When are you not wrong? Many Americans have so broaden the term schlock to render it almost meaningless. Frankly, I am not pleased when it is used synonymously with kitsch.

Two words from Yiddish / German dialect meaning two different often very different things. Look up up Arnold Schoenberg's famous quote about kitsch and plain.

According to the source: Icon of the Deliverance of the Carpatho-Russian coalminers from a mine disaster on St Nicholas Day (19 December) in 1907

Unusual, but not quite schlock.

There is an interesting story here. The late Metropolitan Nicholas of the ACROD commissioned this icon and presented it to the parish of St. Nicholas, Jacobs Creek, Pa on the centennial in 2007 of the worst coal mine disaster in Pennsylvania at the Darr mine. 239 miners perished but the death toll would have been nearly 500 had the Rusyn immigrant miners not refused to work on December 19,1907 - the paternal feast day of their village church - Greek Catholic at the time, now Orthodox. The event is commemorated as a miraculous intercession of St. Nicholas. http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/centennial/

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

It's in the narthex of the church at the New Skete Monastery (OCA stavropegial).

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

It's in the narthex of the church at the New Skete Monastery (OCA stavropegial).

That figures. It's a "lovely" match to the other non-Orthodox figures painted in the nave:

Dorothy Day and Mother Theresa are not Orthodox, and should not be painted within the nave of an Orthodox church.

Abp Michael Ramsey and Pope Paul VI are not Orthodox, and should not be painted within the nave of an Orthodox church.

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

It's in the narthex of the church at the New Skete Monastery (OCA stavropegial).

That figures. It's a "lovely" match to the other non-Orthodox figures painted in the nave:

Dorothy Day and Mother Theresa are not Orthodox, and should not be painted within the nave of an Orthodox church.

Abp Michael Ramsey and Pope Paul VI are not Orthodox, and should not be painted within the nave of an Orthodox church.

Sorry, I was confused. The first image--don't know where it's from. But the depictions of those other dudes in New Skete are in the narthex, not the nave, and predate it's reception into the Orthodox Church, from the time they were still Eastern Rite Franciscans.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Sorry, I was confused. The first image--don't know where it's from. But the depictions of those other dudes in New Skete are in the narthex, not the nave, and predate it's reception into the Orthodox Church, from the time they were still Eastern Rite Franciscans.

Wrong again. The Church of the Transfiguration was the original one, built in 1970, when they were still Byzantine Catholic. They became Orthodox in 1979. The Church of Holy Wisdom was built in 1983 and the iconography finished in 2002. The images are in the nave not the narthex.

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

This is a wonderful and inspiring icon. This is what I hope for.

It is not an icon. It is, at best, wishful thinking; at worst, ecclesiopolitical propaganda. At any rate, it is completely unsuitable for veneration. I make no apologies for my position.

From an RC church? Why the Latin if in a Greek church? And why that image if on Crete or Cyprus--hardly outposts of ecumenism.

Crete was for centuries under Venetian rule; Cyprus was first occupied by the Crusaders, and later ruled by Venice. The iconography and devotional practices of both regions soon became heavily influenced by western forms.

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

This is a wonderful and inspiring icon. This is what I hope for.

It is not an icon. It is, at best, wishful thinking; at worst, ecclesiopolitical propaganda. At any rate, it is completely unsuitable for veneration. I make no apologies for my position.

I can't say anything for sure, but I have heard it hangs inside the Phanar.

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

This is a wonderful and inspiring icon. This is what I hope for.

It is not an icon. It is, at best, wishful thinking; at worst, ecclesiopolitical propaganda. At any rate, it is completely unsuitable for veneration. I make no apologies for my position.

I can't say anything for sure, but I have heard it hangs inside the Phanar.

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

It's in the narthex of the church at the New Skete Monastery (OCA stavropegial).

That figures. It's a "lovely" match to the other non-Orthodox figures painted in the nave:

Dorothy Day and Mother Theresa are not Orthodox, and should not be painted within the nave of an Orthodox church.

Abp Michael Ramsey and Pope Paul VI are not Orthodox, and should not be painted within the nave of an Orthodox church.

They should paint a new image, or at least cover up the non-Orthodox figures. That way the icon would be less schlocky.

From an RC church? Why the Latin if in a Greek church? And why that image if on Crete or Cyprus--hardly outposts of ecumenism.

Crete was for centuries under Venetian rule; Cyprus was first occupied by the Crusaders, and later ruled by Venice. The iconography and devotional practices of both regions soon became heavily influenced by western forms.

What that history has to do with a modern commemorative painting of a modern event?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

From an RC church? Why the Latin if in a Greek church? And why that image if on Crete or Cyprus--hardly outposts of ecumenism.

Crete was for centuries under Venetian rule; Cyprus was first occupied by the Crusaders, and later ruled by Venice. The iconography and devotional practices of both regions soon became heavily influenced by western forms.

What that history has to do with a modern commemorative painting of a modern event?

I was answering the statement of Crete or Cyprus being "hardly outposts of ecumenism".

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

This is a wonderful and inspiring icon. This is what I hope for.

It is not an icon. It is, at best, wishful thinking; at worst, ecclesiopolitical propaganda. At any rate, it is completely unsuitable for veneration. I make no apologies for my position.

Just to be clear, I believe it is Pope Paul VI on the left and Patriarch Athenagorus on the right. I think I could argue about the veneration thing but perhaps after Easter (and if I am in the mood for getting browbeaten). Let us leave it as an instructional icon. They sowed the seeds that I hope we will continue to water and nurture such that some day rift in the Church will end.

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

This is a wonderful and inspiring icon. This is what I hope for.

It is not an icon. It is, at best, wishful thinking; at worst, ecclesiopolitical propaganda. At any rate, it is completely unsuitable for veneration. I make no apologies for my position.

Just to be clear, I believe it is Pope Paul VI on the left and Patriarch Athenagorus on the right. I think I could argue about the veneration thing but perhaps after Easter (and if I am in the mood for getting browbeaten). Let us leave it as an instructional icon. They sowed the seeds that I hope we will continue to water and nurture such that some day rift in the Church will end.

Opus, you're still missing the point. The appropriation of iconography to promote a cause, be it political, social or ecclesiopolitical, even if that cause is a "good" one, is a shameful debasement of what iconography is and stands for. We have seen such images a number of times on this thread, images which are simply vehicles for this or that cause. None of them are acceptable, even as didactic images.

It would have been preferable to paint the event in a more conventional, naturalistic style, to clearly distinguish the event as an earthly encounter in time. The use of the abstracted, non-naturalistic, timeless iconographic style, and using the motif of the brotherly embrace and their joint holding a model of a church, one which is seen in icons of Apostles Peter and Paul, only serves to confuse people.

From my last trip to Romania and a parish consecration. That's Metropolitan Teofan of Iaşi, who is very much alive and looks, in this fresco, very 'iconic.' All over Romania, there were paintings of bishops, princes, and even a Sultan, right up there on the back walls of churches next to the saints.

It would have been preferable to paint the event in a more conventional, naturalistic style, to clearly distinguish the event as an earthly encounter in time. The use of the abstracted, non-naturalistic, timeless iconographic style, and using the motif of the brotherly embrace and their joint holding a model of a church, one which is seen in icons of Apostles Peter and Paul, only serves to confuse people.

From my last trip to Romania and a parish consecration. That's Metropolitan Teofan of Iaşi, who is very much alive and looks, in this fresco, very 'iconic.' All over Romania, there were paintings of bishops, princes, and even a Sultan, right up there on the back walls of churches next to the saints.

It would have been preferable to paint the event in a more conventional, naturalistic style, to clearly distinguish the event as an earthly encounter in time. The use of the abstracted, non-naturalistic, timeless iconographic style, and using the motif of the brotherly embrace and their joint holding a model of a church, one which is seen in icons of Apostles Peter and Paul, only serves to confuse people.

It is one thing to have a conventional portrait of a living hierarch in a church office or parish hall. There is also a convention of painting "iconographic portraits" (without haloes, without the appellation "Saint" of departed holy people who may well be glorified as saints in the future. However, the placing of a portrait painted in an iconographic style of a living person within the nave of a church, surrounded by proclaimed saints, is not right.

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

This is a wonderful and inspiring icon. This is what I hope for.

It is not an icon. It is, at best, wishful thinking; at worst, ecclesiopolitical propaganda. At any rate, it is completely unsuitable for veneration. I make no apologies for my position.

I can't say anything for sure, but I have heard it hangs inside the Phanar.

Do no say that you are giving me a heart attack!!!

Really? Due to shock and surprise?

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

From an RC church? Why the Latin if in a Greek church? And why that image if on Crete or Cyprus--hardly outposts of ecumenism.

Crete was for centuries under Venetian rule; Cyprus was first occupied by the Crusaders, and later ruled by Venice. The iconography and devotional practices of both regions soon became heavily influenced by western forms.

What that history has to do with a modern commemorative painting of a modern event?

I was answering the statement of Crete or Cyprus being "hardly outposts of ecumenism".

Art forms don't really mean ecumenism. I meant that if the pope and patriarch were to meet in Cyprus or Crete, there would be large protests.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

It would have been preferable to paint the event in a more conventional, naturalistic style, to clearly distinguish the event as an earthly encounter in time. The use of the abstracted, non-naturalistic, timeless iconographic style, and using the motif of the brotherly embrace and their joint holding a model of a church, one which is seen in icons of Apostles Peter and Paul, only serves to confuse people.

I thought it was more naturalistic than iconographic and they did exchange the brotherly embrace, not sure how differently that could be represented. Also not sure what both of them holding a model of St Peter's Basilica is to represent as neither founded or funded a church which is what the model church is used to represent.

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

It's in the narthex of the church at the New Skete Monastery (OCA stavropegial).

How does that happen?

Logged

Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

It would have been preferable to paint the event in a more conventional, naturalistic style, to clearly distinguish the event as an earthly encounter in time. The use of the abstracted, non-naturalistic, timeless iconographic style, and using the motif of the brotherly embrace and their joint holding a model of a church, one which is seen in icons of Apostles Peter and Paul, only serves to confuse people.

I thought it was more naturalistic than iconographic and they did exchange the brotherly embrace, not sure how differently that could be represented. Also not sure what both of them holding a model of St Peter's Basilica is to represent as neither founded or funded a church which is what the model church is used to represent.

The motif of them jointly holding a church is clearly speaking of church unity. The image is appropriating established and well-understood iconographic imagery to make an ecclesiopolitical statement in the guise of an "icon". The gold-leaf background and lettered inscriptions further attest to the "iconographic" intent of the image, giving the lie to it being simply a conventional painting.

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

It's in the narthex of the church at the New Skete Monastery (OCA stavropegial).

How does that happen?

"Through less than diligent episcopal oversight" is the most charitable way I can express it.

Says it all, really. The bulk of McNichols' work is no less egregious and blasphemous than Lentz's. McNichols has not only painted an "icon" of a declared heretic, but seems to be unaware that Origen was an avowed iconoclast. Oh, the irony!

Is Origen an anathematized heretic, or merely some of his ideas were rejected by the Orthodox? In the West, in the Anglican and Catholic tradition, I've never seen him equated with somebody like Arius- in fact his theology is often referenced as typical of the early Alexandrian tradition.

Logged

"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess." - Martin Luther

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

It's in the narthex of the church at the New Skete Monastery (OCA stavropegial).

How does that happen?

People mistake their own wishes and desires with holy thoughts.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

It's in the narthex of the church at the New Skete Monastery (OCA stavropegial).

How does that happen?

"Through less than diligent episcopal oversight" is the most charitable way I can express it.

When the bishop will not act, it is time for the babushki to intervene.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Says it all, really. The bulk of McNichols' work is no less egregious and blasphemous than Lentz's. McNichols has not only painted an "icon" of a declared heretic, but seems to be unaware that Origen was an avowed iconoclast. Oh, the irony!

Is Origen an anathematized heretic, or merely some of his ideas were rejected by the Orthodox? In the West, in the Anglican and Catholic tradition, I've never seen him equated with somebody like Arius- in fact his theology is often referenced as typical of the early Alexandrian tradition.

See the Fifth Ecumenical Council, accepted also by the West.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Says it all, really. The bulk of McNichols' work is no less egregious and blasphemous than Lentz's. McNichols has not only painted an "icon" of a declared heretic, but seems to be unaware that Origen was an avowed iconoclast. Oh, the irony!

Is Origen an anathematized heretic, or merely some of his ideas were rejected by the Orthodox? In the West, in the Anglican and Catholic tradition, I've never seen him equated with somebody like Arius- in fact his theology is often referenced as typical of the early Alexandrian tradition.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius for teaching the pre-existence of souls, reincarnation, the ultimate salvation of demons, that heavenly bodies possessed souls, and other errors.

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

It's in the narthex of the church at the New Skete Monastery (OCA stavropegial).

How does that happen?

"Through less than diligent episcopal oversight" is the most charitable way I can express it.

When the bishop will not act, it is time for the babushki to intervene.

Yup. Although I fear that babushki and yiayies are in VERY short supply at New Skete ....

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

It's hard to tell if this was painted by an RC/BC or "True Orthodox" hand. If the former, it's on a par with the syncretistic schlock seen at the New Skete monastery; if the latter, yet another polemical, ecclesiopolitical statement. At least neither figure sports a halo.

Where did you find this image, Gunnar? I'm interested.

I found it on an orthodox blog which had an article celebrating Patriarch Bartholomew inviting the Pope Francis to phanar and jerusalem. I cannot find who created it or where it is or anything more about it. I tried searching for it with google images but it just brought up more blogs and news articles which also just used the image

This is a wonderful and inspiring icon. This is what I hope for.

It is not an icon. It is, at best, wishful thinking; at worst, ecclesiopolitical propaganda. At any rate, it is completely unsuitable for veneration. I make no apologies for my position.

I can't say anything for sure, but I have heard it hangs inside the Phanar.

Could you possibly be confusing this image with the icon of Sts. Peter and Andrew embracing, commissioned by, IIRC, Pope Paul for Pat. Athenagoras, at the time of the lifting of the anathemas?

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

What are people's opinions on icons of St. Constantine that depict him with a beard?

Not sure people's opinions are of much worth. Married and monastic saints are depicted with beards, whether they actually had them or not, unless they were eunuchs (sometimes). So, while for example St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki or more certainly St. John the Russian were 36 and 40 at the time of their deaths and St. John likely had a beard I would think, they are depicted as beardless in icons because they were unmarried. Sometimes icons of them make them look like they're 18.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.